The father of Romneycare is the GOP presidential nominee.

Scott Brown and Kay Bailey Hutchison are also pro-choice.

LUDOWICI, Ga. (AP) — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group composed of active duty and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components and was serious enough to kill two people — former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York — by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

"This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

One of the Fort Stewart soldiers charged in the case, Army Pfc. Michael Burnett, also gave testimony that backed up many of the assertions made by prosecutors. The 26-year-old soldier pleaded guilty Monday to manslaughter, illegal gang activity and other charges. He made a deal to cooperate with prosecutors in their case against the three other soldiers.

Prosecutors said the group called itself F.E.A.R., short for Forever Enduring Always Ready. Pauley said authorities don't know how many members the militia had.

...

Prosecutors say Roark, 19, served with the four defendants in the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and became involved with the militia. Pauley said the group believed it had been betrayed by Roark, who left the Army two days before he was killed, and decided the ex-soldier and his girlfriend needed to be silenced.

Burnett testified that on the night of Dec. 4, he and the three other soldiers lured Roark and York to some woods a short distance from the Army post under the guise that they were going target shooting. He said Peden shot Roark's girlfriend in the head while she was trying to get out of her car. Salmon, he said, made Roark get on his knees and shot him twice in the head. Burnett said Aguigui ordered the killings.

"A loose end is the way Isaac put it," Burnett said.

...

Pauley said Aguigui funded the militia using $500,000 in insurance and benefit payments from the death of his pregnant wife a year ago. Aguigui was not charged in his wife's death, but Pauley told the judge her death was "highly suspicious."

She said Aguigui used the money to buy $87,000 worth of semiautomatic assault rifles, other guns and bomb components that were recovered from the accused soldiers' homes and from a storage locker. He also used the insurance payments to buy land for his militia group in Washington state, Pauley said.

In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

Well, KBH may be out, but she shows that you can have a pro-choice Rep. from Texas, of all places.

And Reid runs as pro-life, but doesn't use his power to advance pro-life legislation.

His party lets him make throw away votes to keep his ratings, when it doesn't matter.

Regardless of rating, the NRLC doesn't like him at all. See:

Ah, yes, the incredibly liberal idea of Romneycare. The health care system that was designed by the Heritage Foundation. The plan that was championed by conservatives until Obama adopted it. You're not even trying anymore.

Not this again. The Heritage "plan" was simply an alternative to Hillarycare. It was never a major right-wing proposal, by any stretch of the imagination.

Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia

former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York

Prosecutors say Roark, 19

The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.

Not this again. The Heritage "plan" was simply an alternative to Hillarycare. It was never a major right-wing proposal, by any stretch of the imagination.

Joe, are you capable of writing even a single post with engaging in a major distortion of reality? You do realize that there was also a general election that year, don't you?

That's pretty solid messaging. "Pay no attention to these policy proposals we've created. Because we have no real principles, we've only created them as lesser alternatives, and will immediately ditch them the moment they become a source of compromise."

IOW you have nothing at all to back up that first claim, so you immediately change the subject by introducing an extraneous point, and pretend that your first comment no longer exists. I sure hope for your sake that you don't act like this during your day job.

Whereas a Democrat thinks meeting someone halfway is a mugger and pedestrian agreeing to exchange money for life.

You don't want to know the details, trust me. But, I'll just say I have an internal blockage cause by scar tissue. This is major surgery #2 to try and fix it.

What the hell are you talking about? Nate's record in 2010 means nothing when the topic is Nate's unprecedented ascent to political-expert status in 2008. Nate went from being a total unknown in the political world to making major national TV appearances within a matter of weeks, if not days, after putting his name on his very first political article.

Whereas a Democrat thinks meeting someone halfway is a mugger and pedestrian agreeing to exchange money for life.

Since "Democrats" were in the sentence, any connection to compromise was only in the abstract sense.

Joe, Nate does excellent work. He takes objective analysis very seriously. And not in the "Froma Harrop takes invective seriously except when it's something she's made about" sense.

That's pretty solid messaging. "Pay no attention to these policy proposals we've created. Because we have no real principles, we've only created them as lesser alternatives, and will immediately ditch them the moment they become a source of compromise." The Republican Party: Always willing to meet halfway...until YOU agree to meet halfway, at which point we'll need to redefine halfway.

Democrats adopt an idea generated by a conservative think tank and championed by (among others) the current GOP presidential candidate, but put Obama's name on it and it's poison.

Or maybe it's poison because Obama campaigned aggressively against a mandate when he ran for the White House.

The main substantive disagreements between the leftist Democrats on this site (with the exception of Zen Bitz and possibly MCoA):

- What ratio of stupid/evil/crazy Republicans are
- Whether government assassinations are good when Democrats are in power or whether government assassination are bad but just shouldn't be mentioned when Democrats are in power
- Whether government censorship of political speech is bodacious, or simply awesome.

It doesn't exactly take a brain surgeon to figure out who this is. Given that I left BTF, no need to continue to shun relative anonymity.

What the hell are you talking about? Nate's record in 2010 means nothing when the topic is Nate's unprecedented ascent to political-expert status in 2008. Nate went from being a total unknown in the political world to making major national TV appearances within a matter of weeks, if not days, after putting his name on his very first political article.

The main substantive disagreements between the leftist Democrats on this site (with the exception of Zen Bitz and possibly MCoA):

- What ratio of stupid/evil/crazy Republicans are

The record-high national debt stands at $15.9 trillion, with nearly a third of this overspending the direct responsibility of this President.

"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand that burdening our children with such massive debt is a loan on their future," Priebus said. "We can do better than this, and on day one of the Romney-Ryan Administration, Mitt Romney will take immediate action to cut federal spending and bring the debt under control."

When he was sworn in as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney inherited a $3 billion budget gap, Priebus recalled. "Thanks to bold, sensible cost-cutting efforts he initiated, Governor Romney left the taxpayers with a $2 billion surplus – a 'rainy day' fund – just four years later."

Nate Silver is a highly successful popularizer of contemporary quantitative political science. His understanding of polling and elections is drawn mostly from his reading of contemporary work in the field. You can see this in the discussion of "convention bounces" Ron quoted earlier.

The "political experts", then, are the actual academics in the field whose work Silver is drawing on, and he has remained in close conversation with them.

The main substantive disagreements between the leftist Democrats on this site

So what are your criteria for "political expert"? And who would qualify under your standards? Kevin Phillips? Michael Barone? Mr. & Mrs. James Carville? I'm not arguing here, just trying to figure out what you mean by the term.

AFAICT Nate's a statistician who's (so far) done a pretty damn good job of applying his statistical method to politics, which at the very least makes him (provisionally) an "expert" political statistician---which is all that most people are really taking him to be.

Dan, it seems for you lately that "Democrat" has become what "liberal" is for Joe. With the same dismissive vitriol regardless of truth or nuance.

Adding: the one thing we all agree on is that Dan really needs to go and learn what a corporation is before getting his dudgeon on again.

Generally, my definition of "expert" is someone with more than a few weeks of experience in a given field. Nate's been at this for four years now in the political arena, but he went from nobody to rock star in 2008 based on a few posts he made under an alias.

As for the "(provisionally) an 'expert' political statistician," I don't necessarily disagree, although it's interesting how many liberals in these threads have gone to great lengths to mention that they believe Nate's analysis of the 2012 election is way off, the latest being 'Johnny Sycophant" earlier today (#4048).

Again, I think a lot of it had to do with the void in the field. ...

I agree. Again, lest anyone believe otherwise, I enjoy Nate's work and I'm impressed with his quick ascent in the political world. More than anything, I'm just skeptical when people present allegedly unbiased numbers alongside partisan analysis. Nate makes no secret that he's a political liberal, so it would be naive to believe that biases can't and don't creep into his methodology and/or analysis.

Neither party gives a rats ass about the 'deficit'... one side simply wants to use to get rid of programs that they're philosophically opposed to, the other side simply wants to use to bash the hypocrisy of a party they're opposed to...

Can somebody help me out with a hint? I've been gone for a couple of months

The reason I think of Nate as more or less a political "expert" is that (1) he seems very well grounded in his knowledge of specific races well beyond the presidency, sort of like a latter-day Barone, if not without Barone's frequent flyer miles; (2) his PREdictions in 2008 and 2010 were pretty damn good; and (3) he's always looking to make corrections in his method. It's why I compared him earlier to Bill James in his approach to his subject, even if he's not a "political expert" in the same way that an academic or a seasoned pol or a Michael Barone might be.

EDIT: Another, less statistically oriented method of flawlessly predicting upcoming elections is to find out what Dick Morris says will happen, and bet heavily on the opposite.

That's if you're a lefty. If you're a right-winger, you use Bob Shrum.

The reason I think of Nate as more or less a political "expert" is that (1) he seems very well grounded in his knowledge of specific races well beyond the presidency, sort of like a latter-day Barone, if not without Barone's frequent flyer miles; (2) his PREdictions in 2008 and 2010 were pretty damn good; and (3) he's always looking to make corrections in his method. It's why I compared him earlier to Bill James in his approach to his subject, even if he's not a "political expert" in the same way that an academic or a seasoned pol or a Michael Barone might be.

And BTW I'd certainly consider Barone a major political expert, even though his views for the past few decades are about as conservative as they come. I respect knowledge no matter what the person makes of it.

One is foreign policy chops. Romney has less in the way of exposure to serious involvement in foreign and defense policy than any major-party nominee since Bill Clinton in 1992 and Romney's fellow Bay Stater Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Ryan, as a member of the House, theoretically brings a little more. But actually a good bit more, to judge from a little-noticed speech he delivered three blocks from the White House to the Alexander Hamilton Society in June 2011....

This election can be seen as a contest between the Founders' ideas and those of the Progressives, who saw the Founders as outmoded in an industrial era.

Ryan strengthens Romney in his invocation of the Founders. Obama is stuck with the tinny and outdated debunking of the Progressives. Which rings truer today?

Americans keep behaving in ways that baffle the liberal mainstream media. Two examples figured prominently--or should have--in last week's news.

One is the runoff primary for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Texas. Former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz thumped incumbent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, 57 to 43 percent.

Cruz won even though the Texas Republican establishment, from Gov. Rick Perry on down, endorsed Dewhurst. So did the Austin lobbying community, since Dewhurst as lieutenant governor has run the state Senate for the last 10 years (and, having lost this race, will do so for at least the next two).

Dewhurst has had a generally conservative record and had no problem getting elected and reelected statewide four times. And he spent liberally from the fortune he made in the private sector.

To be fair, some MSM outlets did run stories on Cruz's rise in the polls since he ran behind Dewhurst by a 45- to 34-percent margin in the May 29 primary. And it's not uncommon for a second-place finisher to overcome the primary winner in a runoff.

But there's a pattern here that the big liberal press has been reluctant to recognize: Candidates from the GOP establishment are getting knocked off by challengers with less name recognition, far less money, and the support of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party was supposed to be dead and gone, you know.

And if he weren't a liberal himself, I can't see that the BBTF high-fivers would be kneeling before him.

The bottom line is that romney needs to win a 30-70 proposition like Ohio and Wisconsin to make a game of it.

Yeah, a big time stat nerd who uses his baseball stat nerdiness to analyze elections would never fly here unless people thought he was a liberal.

I'm close to Joe on the Nate Silver thing. He went from nobody (in the political arena) to somebody almost literally overnight. And if he weren't a liberal himself, I can't see that the BBTF high-fivers would be kneeling before him as if he were Zod.

One thing that Nate's talked about, and that we saw in 2010 (where, as Joe noted above, 14 of 15 Nate "tossups" broke to the R's), is that if events do break one way, they'll tend to break the same way across all or most of the tossup states. So, on the one hand, Romney has to win all or most of the "tossups", but if things break his way, that can happen. That said, I'm pretty sure that's already baked into Nate's model. If all of the tossup states were treated as being independent of each other, I think Obama would be in a much stronger position statistically.

Saying Nate Silver's predictions are biased because he's a liberal is like saying PECOTA is biased because he's an As (or whatever) fan.

His articles and analysis may be biased, but i think his numbers are clean.

But there's a pattern here that the big liberal press has been reluctant to recognize: Candidates from the GOP establishment are getting knocked off by challengers with less name recognition, far less money, and the support of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party was supposed to be dead and gone, you know.

I'm close to Joe on the Nate Silver thing. He went from nobody (in the political arena) to somebody almost literally overnight. And if he weren't a liberal himself, I can't see that the BBTF high-fivers would be kneeling before him.

I agree. Again, lest anyone believe otherwise, I enjoy Nate's work and I'm impressed with his quick ascent in the political world. More than anything, I'm just skeptical when people present allegedly unbiased numbers alongside partisan analysis. Nate makes no secret that he's a political liberal, so it would be naive to believe that biases can't and don't creep into his methodology and/or analysis. (And unlike a zero-sum baseball game, there are all sorts of ways for bias to creep into political modeling, whether it's the Dem/GOP weight, voter enthusiasm, registered vs. likely, etc.)

I don't know what qualifies this as "weird." I've been reading for a year that the Tea Party is dead, and yet it keeps racking up wins.

No, they're two different animals. Baseball is essentially a zero-sum game with 30 teams and ~1,000 players, while politics is essentially a binary choice in a much more nebulous environment. In politics, there's far more room for biases — conscious and subconscious — to impact the data.

politics actually is a zero-sum game. there is a winner and there is a loser, and i could be missing something, but i am not seeing any incentive for silver to rig his numbers.

You and Dan are making a good pair with the hyperbole lately. Is it a libertarian thing?

Elections are a zero-sum game, but political polling isn't. The Dem/GOP split, voter enthusiasm, registered vs. likely voters, etc., etc., all make political polling as much art as science.

I also wonder whether his blog would have been picked up so quickly by the Times if he were a right winger.

I think the BBTF liberal elite here trust Nate, because he's one of them.

Conservatives are never able to place anyone in the NY Times op/ed columns until they've sweated decades in knuckle-breaking labor!

Age at first NYT regular columnist appearance:

Ross Douthat, 29
Paul Krugman, 46

Where's the conservative?

No one thinks Intrade leans liberal or conservative and they get cited all the time despite dubious authenticity.